INSTRUCTION IN VIEW OF THE SERVICE OF GOD
[p. 165] INSTRUCTION IN VIEW OF THE SERVICE OF GOD
1 Corinthians 11:17 - 26; Acts 20:7 - 12; Hebrews 2:10 - 12; Revelation 22:16,17
JT It is well to remark at the outset that there is more than a creed given in Scripture that should govern us in carrying on the service of God. It is a question of teaching, we have to be taught, not simply to learn the creed but to be taught from the Scriptures, as suggested, and find out the terms that should be used from the teaching. The converts at the beginning, according to Acts 2, “persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”, Acts 2:42. It is obvious, therefore, that we are to learn, if we are to have part in the service of God, to learn by teaching, by what is taught, and gather up, through instruction, what we should say — to God, to the Lord and to one another. So these scriptures are suggested because they contain, first of all the teaching of the Lord’s supper. The terms or words comprise what is intimated in the breaking of bread, which means it covers not only the bread broken, but the cup as well. The whole terminology governing the whole institution, is the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper would be a synonym of the breaking of bread. The passage in Acts 20 is to show how the early Christians themselves kept, and how they regarded the institution of the Lord’s supper, and how particularly instead of breaking bread at once as the disciples came together, before breaking bread Paul discoursed at length to them as if he would teach them at length, going that way so that they might know how to carry out the service. Hebrews gives us the terms that we should use in speaking to God, to the Lord. The passage in [p. 166] Revelation indicates plainly that the assembly is the bride, the Lamb’s wife. She is called the bride in the passage read. The Spirit and the bride say “Come”, they both say the same thing, showing that the assembly is very near to the Spirit. All these passages taken together, and many others like them, would serve to save us from wrong usage of terms or words of scripture, but rather that we should know how to use the Scriptures, and if we use them to quote them aright, and to speak of them intelligently. 1 Corinthians 10 says, “I speak as to intelligent persons”, the apostle speaks to the Corinthians and regards them as intelligent persons in that chapter, whereas in chapter 11 he has to say they were not doing what was right. He cannot approve of what they were saying, but he uses the term “Lord’s supper” as formally right in governing the service.
EuR Would Paul’s discourse being extended involve that Paul’s ministry and the Lord’s supper have always run along side by side?
JT I would say so. Paul is the minister of the assembly, as he speaks authoritatively in a peculiar way, so he says in the passage read, “But in prescribing to you on this which I now enter on, I do not praise, namely, that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse”. He is very plain in condemning what they were doing. He quotes exactly what the Lord did Himself, in verse 23, and all this is to help us to know what to do when we come together to break bread.
DC Did I understand you in your prayer to intimate that it is possible for us to come together for the worse?
JT It is possible. Most of the sects around us come together for the worse. In general what they do is a travesty of the truth, but the Lord has taught the brethren so that we shall know what to do and what to say, therefore we are at liberty to come [p. 167] together, and to have in mind what we have read in these scriptures, especially what Paul writes and says. In chapter 10 the cup is put before the bread, which is to be understood. We would make a great mistake if we took the order of the Lord’s supper from chapter 10, we should take it from chapter 11, because the order was being reversed and so the thing had to be set right.
HR Is that what you mean when you say ‘terminology’?
JT The terms that should be used. It is not a creed, it is something that should be understood and gathered up through our meditation, our Bible readings and our home readings. We should seek to learn things continually.
VS So it is important to take account of what the apostle says; he received from the Lord. Does not that involve authority?
JT It is a direct word from the Lord to Paul, “I received” it, the earlier apostles had knowledge of the Lord’s supper, but they had not received a special message with regard to it.
HR Is that why there is a difference in this from what the others give us in Matthew and Mark?
JT Just so. Matthew, Mark and Luke all speak of the Lord’s supper, but not to bring out the order of it, although Luke comes very near to what Paul writes. Paul gives us the exact order in this passage, chapter 11. Acts 20 would intimate that Paul himself, in coming to a particular place, had in view to instruct these people at Troas; evidently they needed instruction, otherwise he would not have spoken at length. He even continued to speak after a certain thing had happened, which brought out how careful the Lord was for His people and for the service, that the thing that happened — the boy falling — should not interfere and damage the truth. Paul enfolded the boy in his arms; he was not only a good teacher, but [p. 168] he was a lover, he had love in his heart, and he had intelligence enough to know that the boy was not dead.
EuR Is there significance in the first day of the week being mentioned, and “we being assembled”, the word ‘assembled’ being brought in?
JT That is good. It is such terminology that should be used both as to the day and the formation of the meetings, the character of the gatherings — “we being assembled”. It does not say, ‘the disciples were’ but the writer was apparently there and he says “we being assembled”, the antecedent to that is the disciples were assembled.
HR We learn how to assemble?
JT Exactly.
RB Would you say they were in assembly in Acts 11? They came together but not in the sense in which you were speaking of in 1 Corinthians 11, “When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”.
JT He is using the right word only to show that what they were doing was not right, to outward appearances they were assembled, but they were not assembled.
EuR Despising the assembly of God.
JT Not acting rightly according to the word. It shows that we might be assembled, and be assembled for the worse as has often happened, whereas he is endeavouring to put them right in what he quotes from the Lord’s own doings.
GG If we are right, what are the thoughts that would be filling our minds as we assemble?
JT It is rather a question of excluding what is unsuitable. We should not be thinking of ordinary things, we have come together for a purpose and the mind is appealed to, that our minds should be set on the one thing we have come for. The Lord has His place amongst us for it is called the “Lord’s supper”,
not ‘God’s supper’ or the ‘Spirit’s supper’. What should be in our minds is the Lord and His absence and we are calling Him to mind.
GCG You were saying the other day that in regard to what we may speak of as the formality of the breaking of bread, the simpler we are about it the better. Would that simplicity be brought about by affection for Christ, thinking of Him with a desire to call Him to mind? Would that help us?
JT Very much. The idea of assembling — how we come — with our minds set on the thing, we are not thinking of other things but of the one thing. We are thinking of the Lord because it is His supper. The mind is taken up with Christ. We are told elsewhere that we have the mind of Christ, a faculty of thinking as He does.
EuR The light in which we sit down is expressed in the footnote, “For the calling of me to mind”. That is governing us as we come together and sit down.
JT Therefore anything we may say to the Lord is to Him. It is not to God or to the Spirit, it is to the Lord. We are confined and somewhat limited in that sense, and become enlarged as the theme opens up, and as the idea of the glory as related to the service opens up, for it is from glory to glory.
S Would you say that we only speak intelligently as we give place to the Spirit?
JT Quite so. No one can say Lord Jesus except by the Spirit. We say it in power.
GCG Would it be apropos to distinguish between the first day of the week and the Lord’s day, in this matter?
JT I think so. There must be some guide to regulate the days of the week. The first day synchronises with the Lord’s day only the first day is more affectionate as to the day of the week. It is used in John 20 twice over on “the first day of the week”.
[p. 170] It is of very great importance in connection with the subject with which we are now engaged.
GCG Having reference to the supreme place Christ has in our affections?
JT And to lay the base for our affections. We are told He was raised by the Father’s glory, and it was on that day.
EuR Do the Lord’s day and the Lord’s supper run along together, and the first day of the week and the breaking of bread? The Lord’s day would be more the authority of the Lord. John uses it in Revelation 1, and it would point to the Lord’s authority, “I became in [the] Spirit on the Lord’s day”, Revelation 1:10 The Lord is entitled to any day but especially the Lord’s day.
WS What are we to learn by Eutychus being overpowered by a deep sleep?
JT The warning would be to young people. We thank God that we have so many young people who are breaking bread and we might say they have everything to learn and there is a need of looking into the Scriptures and following up every means of help so that they might know how to serve God.
EuR Keeping awake to Paul’s ministry.
JT In spite of the fact that the greatest teacher on earth at that time was there — and if we loved Christ we should be most attentive if we were there — yet he goes to sleep, and it was at the window-opening, as if he were looking out. It is a warning to the young people not to be world bordering, but to learn to be intelligent, to use their minds because they are given to us to use. They are the greatest faculty we can have under our control and if we love Christ we shall keep Christ before us when we come to partake of that which speaks of His death and all that goes to the service of God in it.
JS Why is the young man’s name given us?
JT To remind us that he was worth naming;
[p. 171] his name was registered in heaven, he had a place there. The names of the sons of the brother who carried the Lord’s cross are given us-Alexander and Rufus — to remind us of the place heaven gives such.
EF Is the suggestion that listening to Paul’s ministry keeps us in life? They brought away the boy in life.
JT Quite so. Caleb says God kept him alive for eighty-five years, he was taken account of by God from the outset.
VS The apostle’s exhortation is to set our minds on things above, would that help us?
JT Quite so.
EF Would what Paul does here have reference to holding the truth in love?
JT Quite so, showing that he is characterised by love as well as by instruction. He said to the Ephesians that he was concerned that they should know his knowledge of the mystery, but it was more than that, it was that they were loved, and so it makes much of love, especially in 1 Corinthians 13. How important that those who serve the saints in ministry should be ready to love and care for them even if it is physical care! You would do anything for the saints to relieve the situation. Paul knew that life was in the boy when he had enfolded him in his arms, he had descended to do it. We often have to descend to do things for the saints, but we do it because we love them.
EuR The breaking of bread and the privilege that follows calls for inwardness, the contrast of Eutychus in the window-opening.
JT The doors were shut, it would imply that no one should be let in to interfere. John 20 alludes to what exists at the breaking of bread, but Paul deals with what begins the service, so that the Lord is viewed as coming to them in chapter 20. “Jesus came and stood in the midst”, John 20:19. We had this quite [p. 172] recently and it is helpful; we would like it to become more familiar to all of us tonight. John 20 has in mind “the midst”, the general idea of the assembly, the article refers to the general idea of the assembly, but Luke says “in their midst”, the local position.
EuR “Jesus came and stood in the midst”, John 20:19, are you coupling that with His coming to us by way of our calling Him to mind?
JT It is the general idea of the assembly because we want to express them all, the whole assembly should at least be reached before the service is over.
RB Does it involve an upward movement? Having gone up in Acts 20, they broke bread.
JT That helps us, it is an upward movement, but Paul had to descend to secure the boy alive. He would go out of the service to get that boy, it is a very humbling thing for the boy. Paul had to descend to secure him. They took him away, they did not leave him to go and play, but they took him with them.
GP Paul was following his Master.
JT Quite so. What will love not do. If a boy falls from an open window, love will go after him.
DC It has been said that the fall was inside the building, is there any ground for thinking that?
JT I would say that, but it is simply that he was at the open window.
RB It is suggestive that Paul had a sense in his own soul how the Lord had come down for him, he could come down and embrace the boy.
JT Very good. You might say there is a movement of that with everyone of us, the Lord personally goes after us and secures us, not that the Holy Spirit is not involved in it and God Himself, but it is a question of love.
I suppose we might move on to the passage in Hebrews to bring out the terms of the service. First of all we have in verse 10, “It became him”, that is God Himself, “for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”. The sons of God are in mind there. Then verse 11 says, “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”. That is from another point of view, they are brethren of Christ at this point. Verse 11 would come in before verse 10, because the question of order is not in view here, it is rather the great doctrine of the truth of the sons of God and the brethren of Christ, “for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”. So that the order would be after the Lord’s supper, I mean to say, if we are to link it on with Corinthians, the brethren come into view first, and then the assembly. You might say first the assembly, but they all run together really, as we shall see in Revelation 22 the Spirit and the bride are near together, but here the brethren are in mind and they form the assembly. It says, “For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren”, it is “in the midst of the assembly” which evidently would be the second thought, and the third thought would be the sons of God.
EuR “Will I sing thy praises”, are the sons of God in that?
JT First the brethren and then the assembly is formed of the brethren, that is where the praises are sung, and the sons of God come in. In verse 11 Christ praises the Father — God — there in the midst of the assembly, and the thought of sonship would come in in verse 10, “For it became him”, that is God, “for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”. In bringing sons to glory-that is the process, for service is involved in that, God is doing that, Christ has effected the brethren, He has brought them about, they form the assembly, but sons are those that God has, the sons are for God.
GG Could you say what peculiarly delightful thoughts Christ would have in referring to the brethren in this connection of the service?
JT He says “My brethren”. He said to Mary, take this message, “Go to my brethren”. He also speaks about the assembly as His. “Go to my brethren”.
GCG It would be clear that the term ‘brethren’ which we are now considering would be in every way equal to the term the Lord uses in John 20.
JT That is what I understand. The word ‘assembly’ would be included in “mine” (as in John 17) and in the brethren. The assembly might also be taken as on equal footing with both, the terms are of equal value whether they are under the eye of the Father or under the eye of Christ, they are of equal value.
HR At which point should we address the Lord in bridal relations in this connection?
JT Early. The Lord speaks of Himself, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, but the praises are sung to God.
K The “he” in verse 11 is Christ?
JT That is Christ, but in verse 10 it is God.
EuR Does verse 11 involve that He has set Himself above flesh and blood conditions, because we can have no part with Him in that connection, and He has taken up a new condition in resurrection in which there is this vast company all of His own order, the heavenly company, so that they are in every way suited to be called “brethren”?
JT The passage is to bring that out, the doctrine,
[p. 175] not the order of it. In verse 12 it says “in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”. The “thy” is God the Father.
EuR After the breaking of bread, as recognising we are all of one with Him, would we address Him in worship as “Firstborn among many brethren”, Romans 8:29?
JT I think it is wise to keep that out. Let the Lord be the actor, and the “thy” the Father, the Person acted upon. It is a question of how to use terms of Scripture, to use them accurately and if we are speaking of Christ as singing in the midst of the assembly, the proper thing is to refer to Christ as being something to the Father.
EuR Would that be after we have responded to Him in bridal relations? So is it first brethren, bride and sons in order?
JT I would place that order, too. I would think the terms are of equal value, the word ‘brethren’ and ‘assembly’ and the word ‘bride’ are all of equal value. They come in properly after the Lord is apprehended, first as in our midst in His own personal right, but what will He do, with the assembly, with His brethren? He will think of the Father. The final thought is God Himself.
EuR “My Father and your Father, ... my God and your God”, John 20:17 Quite so.
SP “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, is that resurrection or ascension?
JT The assembly is not on resurrection ground, that is simply on the way to the heavenly position. Ephesians gives you “raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies”, Ephesians 2:6. “Made us sit down”, is the figure to which resurrection is on the way, because resurrection may apply to Israel in principle, the world, but the position of the assembly must be on ascension ground; to make it anything less than that will not do, it lowers the [p. 176] tone of what we say. Ephesians goes the whole way, we are raised up together and made to sit down in the heavenlies in Christ.
EuR So would risen in Christ, the fruit of His love in death, test our spiritual ability to rise to the higher level? Our status is never less than that.
JT Romans never speaks of us as risen with Christ. Christ is risen in Romans, but we are not risen with Him in Romans. It is Colossians and Ephesians that say that. When we come together on the first day of the week, from our houses, it would be in the sense of being disciples. We are the Lord’s people and all that goes with it.
GCG In the verse we are now noticing we are sons. I suppose it is a wholly spiritual matter, and dependent upon the Lord being free to come to us and taking His place, and ourselves now merged with the whole assembly. It would be beyond the local position now.
JT John does not use the word ‘sons’ except in Revelation, but Paul does. I believe what you say is right, “in the midst of the assembly” is the whole position, and that is what we are as sons of God and brethren of Christ.
LR What does the prophet Zephaniah refer to when he says, “He will rejoice over thee with joy”, Zephaniah 3:17?
JT It is Jehovah there, of course. When we are speaking of using pronouns for divine Persons it may be Christ, as in John’s epistle. It is a question of spiritual understanding to know how to use these terms, and therefore the Old Testament terms have not always gone the whole way. ‘Jehovah’ does not go as far as ‘Father’.
EuR Would you say a word as to “My Father and your Father, ... my God and your God”, John 20:17?
JT It is a beautiful expression and used to a woman, which is to be noted. It is a sister that carries the message. It is more a question of spirituality [p. 177] than order; a sister can be spiritual, and as spiritual or more so, than a brother, and yet she is not to speak in the assembly. So we should think of all these things when using terms so that we do not misplace them. John 20 shows how the Lord is taken up with the thought of spirituality in a sister and how He can employ them and use them in the service. It cannot be applied formally in assembly service because she is a sister, but it shows that that sister ought to have sufficient intelligence to enter into what is current. Sisters are able to take things in and support what is going on.
WS Is the thought of God something beyond Father? Very often we finish with a note addressing the Father.
JT I think John 20 would show that God is the final thought, that God should be all in all, which is the final thought. That is 1 Corinthians 15, he refers to what God is.
EuR Is relationship more stressed in Father and absoluteness more in God?
JT You mean family relationships, whereas God is absolute, therefore the first mention of God is in the plural. The word ‘God’ in Genesis is a plural word, showing His supremacy, and that is carried through. God is “all in all”.
EuR That does not involve the three Persons, but stresses supremacy.
JT Intelligence would be needed to use it, it is not ‘God all and in all’ but “God all in all”, that is everything. He is everything in all. The plural word, as we were saying, in the Old Testament, is to bring out that very thing, the supremacy of God.
EuR We have got so used to the expression “God our Father” that we sometimes continue to use it when the height of the service may be reaching toward our God, do you think? Whereas, if we were encouraged to drop the name ‘Father’ and be [p. 178] shorter, perhaps, in relation to the high altitude we should find the service greatly helped.
JT There must be the idea of God by itself — God may be all in all.
EF Would full knowledge of the fulness of God in Ephesians 3 have any bearing on what you are saying?
JT Quite so. It works out the thought of the Father, bowing my knees to the Father, but it is working up to the thought of God, that we might be filled even to all the fulness of God. That is final, we cannot compass the thing, but we are in it.
SP Would the declaration of the Father’s name to us as brethren give us liberty to address Him as Father, not God so much as God and Father?
JT I would not say we cannot do that, “Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, 2 Corinthians 1:3, but there is such a thing as ‘Abba’ which is the same as ‘Father’ in another language, but ‘God’ can be used by itself to bring out its supremacy. It all reverts back to Him and that is what the Lord Jesus is set for that everything should revert back to Him.
GCG The expression “Of him, and through him, and for him” (Romans 11:36) is a very great one.
JT Hebrews 2:10, “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory”, that is what we are speaking of.
GCG I was referring to Romans, but it seems on the same lines.
JT 1 Corinthians 8:4 - 6 would help us, for that is like what we have here. We have the order of divine Persons and the order of address as set out by teaching. We do not listen to what others are saying but we are taught by what is said, continuing and persevering in the apostles’ teaching.
EuR So we get the verse Mr. G. was quoting in Romans “of him, and through him, and for him are all things: to him be glory” and in Ephesians “To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus throughout all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3:21.
JT We seem to finish with that whenever we deal with these matters. Paul says he wished them to know what he knew about it — wonderful man who knew everything, divinely taught, fully taught.